5.  The applicants, Mr Tadeusz Iskrzycki and Mrs Janina Iskrzycka, were born in 1941 and 1949 respectively and live in Rabka.
6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the Grassroots Committee for the Construction of a Communal Cemetery in Ponice (Komitet Czynu Spolecznego Budowy Cmentarza Komunalnego w Ponicach) applied to the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) for permission to build a cemetery in the applicants' neighbourhood.
7.  On 18 May 1993 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office granted permission.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.
9.  On 7 July 1993 the Nowy Sącz Governor (Wojewoda Nowosądecki) upheld the decision of 18 May 1993.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint (skarga) against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.
11.  On 12 February 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed both decisions.
12.  Following an inspection of the site and having found that the building works were almost complete, on 9 July 1996 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office ordered that the building works be suspended.
13.  On 9 September 1996 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office gave a decision ordering the investor to carry out some additional activities, including obtaining a report from a hydrological expert on the land around the cemetery and a survey of all the land within a 150-metre radius of the cemetery.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.
15.  On 11 December 1996 the Nowy Sącz Governor upheld the challenged decision.
16.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against the Mayor of Rabka (Burmistrz) about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 12 February 1996. They relied on Article 31 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings in force at the relevant time and requested that a fine be imposed on the Mayor of Rabka.
17.  On 12 November 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the complaint about the inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities, finding that the applicants had failed to lodge their complaint in accordance with procedural requirements.
18.  The administrative authorities failed to carry out the duties imposed on them by the decision of 9 September 1996. Therefore, on 5 September 2003, the Nowy Targ District Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) gave a decision and ordered the demolition of the technical infrastructure of the cemetery (the fence, access ways and plots and the storm drainage system). The demolition order did not concern the graves which were already in the cemetery.
19.  On an unspecified date the Nowy Sącz Governor appealed against that decision.
20.  On 12 January 2004 the Małopolski Inspector of Construction Supervision remitted the case for re-examination.
21.  On 22 November 2004 the Nowy Targ District Inspector of Construction Supervision gave a decision allowing the Mayor of Rabka and the Grassroots Committee for the Construction of a Communal Cemetery in Ponice to use the cemetery in accordance with its purpose (pozwolenie na użytkowanie).
22.  On 8 December 2004 the applicants appealed.
23.  On 13 December 2005 the Małopolski Inspector of Construction Supervision declared the decision of 22 November 2004 null and void.
24.  On 27 February 2006 the Chief Inspector of Constructor Supervision (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) upheld the challenged decision.
25.  On an unspecified date the Committee for the Construction of a Communal Cemetery in Ponice lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court.
26.  On 4 October 2006 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the Committee's complaint
27.  The proceedings are pending before the District Inspector of Construction Supervision, who, on 19 February 2010, informed the applicants' lawyer that, following the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 4 October 2006, no measures to re-examine the case had been undertaken because “the case file had not yet been sent back from the appellate administrative authority”.
28.  On 4 June 1998 the Nowy Targ Sanitary Inspector (Państwowy Terenowy Inspektor Sanitarny) gave a decision and ordered the applicants to change their water supply by 30 June 1998.
29.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.
30.  On 30 June 1998 the Nowy Sącz Regional Sanitary Inspector (Państwowy Wojewódzki Inspektor Sanitarny) upheld the challenged decision.
31.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.
32.  On 7 October 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the challenged decision and the preceding decision of the first-instance administrative authority.
33.  On 8 April 2003 the Nowy Targ Sanitary Inspector (Państwowy Inspektor Sanitarny) gave a decision and ordered the applicants to change their water supply to a source from outside the protection zone around the cemetery. The Inspector found that the applicants were using a well in close proximity to the cemetery.
34.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.
35.  On 11 June 2003 the Kraków Regional Sanitary Inspector (Państwowy Wojewódzki Inspektor Sanitarny) upheld the challenged decision.
36.  On 14 November 2005 the Kraków Regional Administrative Court quashed the challenged decision as well as the earlier decision of the first‑instance administrative authority.
37.  On an unspecified date the Kraków Regional Sanitary Inspector lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
38.  On 18 January 2006 the applicants' lawyer lodged a reply to the cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court and requested the court to dismiss it.
39.  On the same day the applicants' lawyer complained to the Kraków Regional Administrative Court of inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities.
40.  On 25 May 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
41.  On 5 September 2006 the Kraków Regional Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.
42.  On 6 January 2003 the applicants lodged a claim against the Rabka Municipality (Miasto i Gmina Rabka). They sought an order of exhumation of the bodies buried in the cemetery or compensation in the amount of 2,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
43.  On 28 June 2004 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicants' claim. It held that the way in which the Rabka Municipality had used their property (namely, by constructing a cemetery), although it had created some inconvenience for the applicants, could not be classified as “excessive” in respect of the normal use of a property.
44.  On 30 July 2004 the applicants appealed.
45.  On 4 February 2005 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
46.  On 25 May 2005 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal.
47.  On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court refused to examine their cassation appeal.